LAS VEGAS—On the show floor at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) convention this week, Red cameras were a common sight. Surprisingly common, considering the digital cinema company debuted its first camera, the Red One, just seven years ago at the 2007 NAB conference. (At the time, Red was accused of hyping vaporware, because it had promoted its as-yet-unseen product for so long.)

This week, Red continued its short tradition of putting custom camera functionality in the hands of its customers, showing off its Redlink Development Kit and Bridge. The Redlink Bridge is an aluminum wireless box that attaches to a Red Digital Still and Motion Camera (DSMC). It weighs about a half a pound and can receive signals from up to 50 feet away. The Development Kit comes loaded on a flash drive and includes the Redlink SDK, some sample apps, and additional resources.

Enlarge/ An app built with the Redlink Development Kit, which controls various aspects of the DSMC.

Using the Development Kit, filmmakers can build their own apps to remotely control features "including Record Start/Stop, Shutter Speed, White Balance, ISO, and programmable User Keys,” a Red press release said. "You can also program your custom app to monitor the status of your camera settings.”

Filmmakers can write apps for iOS and Android tablets and phones, or they can create applications for Windows desktop computers or microcontrollers. Wirelessly, users can only control one camera at a time, but over Ethernet connections, any number of cameras can be controlled.

The Redlink Bridge works over 802.11 b/g/n standards, and it communicates with the DSMC using a proprietary Redlink Command Protocol (RCP). The Redlink Bridge costs $395.

A Red representative on the NAB show floor told Ars that this remote controlling step up would enable filmmakers to mount a camera off an airplane, for example, or to put a camera anywhere that it might be difficult or dangerous for a human to go.

Red was showing off the Redlink Bridge functions using an older handheld product called a Tactical Hand Controller, or THC, which can wirelessly "control the focus and iris on Canon and Nikon lenses.” Before the Redlink Bridge, filmmakers could control their cameras' lenses with the THC and a Wireless Motor Driver (WMD). Now with the Bridge, the THC will still put you out a hefty $2,900, but it no longer needs to be paired with a WMD to control the camera's lens. That’s a good thing, considering WMDs are listed on Red’s site as costing $3,950.

Given how little (relative to everything else in a film production) a RED camera costs, I would bet that within a year we see really well-composed footage from places where there's a serious risk or even certainty of the camera being destroyed in the course of the scene.

Given how little (relative to everything else in a film production) a RED camera costs, I would bet that within a year we see really well-composed footage from places where there's a serious risk or even certainty of the camera being destroyed in the course of the scene.

That's what GoPros are for. This is for the merely inconvenient. Even if the camera isn't 'expensive' vis-a-vis production costs, it ain't cheap and it's usually not owned by the filmmaker ('Do you guys mind if we maybe, blow up your $30,000 camera and $25,000 lens?)

Cool stuff to be sure. Red really shot holes in the aquisition market when the undercut the likes of Arri, Sony CineAlta, et al. Blackmagic is starting to do the same thing to Red though with their line of cinema cameras. The new Ursa cinema cam is unbelievable considering what it wasn't long when the AG-DVX100 (Standard Definition, 24p) was considered groundbreaking.

Given how little (relative to everything else in a film production) a RED camera costs, I would bet that within a year we see really well-composed footage from places where there's a serious risk or even certainty of the camera being destroyed in the course of the scene.

That's what GoPros are for. This is for the merely inconvenient. Even if the camera isn't 'expensive' vis-a-vis production costs, it ain't cheap and it's usually not owned by the filmmaker ('Do you guys mind if we maybe, blow up your $30,000 camera and $25,000 lens?)

Exactly. I was watching last weeks episode of Grimm which used some kind of "action sports camera" attached to the vertical stabilizer of a DC-3 to acquire take-off footage of the plane. To me it seemed sort of odd, gratuitous to use the fisheye shot but quality and color-wise it worked just fine along with the rest of the episodes footage.

Given how little (relative to everything else in a film production) a RED camera costs, I would bet that within a year we see really well-composed footage from places where there's a serious risk or even certainty of the camera being destroyed in the course of the scene.

That's what GoPros are for. This is for the merely inconvenient. Even if the camera isn't 'expensive' vis-a-vis production costs, it ain't cheap and it's usually not owned by the filmmaker ('Do you guys mind if we maybe, blow up your $30,000 camera and $25,000 lens?)

Exactly. I was watching last weeks episode of Grimm which used some kind of "action sports camera" attached to the vertical stabilizer of a DC-3 to acquire take-off footage of the plane. To me it seemed sort of odd, gratuitous to use the fisheye shot but quality and color-wise it worked just fine along with the rest of the episodes footage.

For run-of-the-mill shows, sure. But that's documentary-style video, and clearly apparent as such. I'm thinking about the blockbuster movie where they're already spending several mil blowing large objects up while hurling them through the air. Getting quality, controlled footage from inside danger zones could well be worth $60K for the dead camera. Especially because the first three movies to do it would get feature articles in every tech pub on the planet.